Does the MWI of QM allow for amnipotence?

[0zyzzyz0]

In a past discussion of quantum machanics in another forum I raised the question of whether the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics might allow for a resolution of the paradoxes of an hypothesized god being omnipotent.

Q: "Allowing that omnipotence would naturally imply omnicience, omnipresence, transtemporalism and just about anything else the imagination can or cannot think of, and considering all paradoxes following from this, are these attendent paradoxes resolved upon acceptance of Everett's MWI?"

Discussions have ways of going off on tangents and we never followed up on the question. It's been left bouncing around in my noggin now for a long while, so here I go with introducing it as my first attempt at creating a thread on this forum.

%)
0zy

 

[0zyzzyz0]

I'm not sure if putting this in the Philosophy catagory is the best place for it, so if a moderator thinks it could be better placed I am open to moving it.
Can a thread be posted under more than one heading? -- That is, in a non MWI of reality?

 

[Skwim]

Q: "Allowing that omnipotence would naturally imply omnicience, omnipresence, transtemporalism and just about anything else the imagination can or cannot think of, and considering all paradoxes following from this, are these attendent paradoxes resolved upon acceptance of Everett's MWI?"

Why would omnipotence, the ability to do anything to other things, imply knowing everything and/or being everywhere? I see no "naturally" at work here at all. Now, if for purposes of argument you merely want to assert that an intelligence has all these qualities, that's quite different. Is this what you want to do, or are you sticking with your "naturally imply"? If so, please explain why this is so.

 

[Reptillian]

Why would omnipotence, the ability to do anything to other things, imply knowing everything and/or being everywhere? I see no "naturally" at work here at all. Now, if for purposes of argument you merely want to assert that an intelligence has all these qualities, that's quite different. Is this what you want to do, or are you sticking with your "naturally imply"? If so, please explain why this is so.

I don't know about the original poster, but if I were given the power to do anything, I'd use my omnipotence to make myself all knowing and all seeing.

 

[0zyzzyz0]

Skwim,
I think Reptillian basically has the idea as I understand it. Our understandings, of course, don't spell out the last word.

If something is all powerful then it seems to me that it would be able to know everything that is possible for it to know. Different interpretations of what constitutes omnipotence might have some insisting that such a being could know even what cannot be known (paradox) or anything they desire to know, or...

I think there are some other ways to look at omnipotence beyond these. Do we consider each or retrict to one semantic line of inquiry? I dunno.

The questions, as usual, grow exponentially. Does being able to know necessarily imply knowing? Can an omniscient being choose not to know something or if it is both omnicient and omnipotent can it choose to not be able to know something?

We seem to come to where having one omni characteristic implies having all and also to where having one precludes having others. I think this is a classic paradox used in arguing that omni characteristics are logically impossible.

Where does it stop? For example: Can such a being be you and also not be you simultaneously? Can the MWI of QM get us around these paradoxes in that it could theoretically allow for contradictory things to occur simultaneously - but in different universes?

Personally, I'm finding that spinning around in my chair is helping me make sense of this.

%)
0zy

 

[Skwim]

Skwim,
I think Reptillian basically has the idea as I understand it. Our understandings, of course, don't spell out the last word.

If something is all powerful then it seems to me that it would be able to know everything that is possible for it to know. Different interpretations of what constitutes omnipotence might have some insisting that such a being could know even what cannot be known (paradox) or anything they desire to know, or...

Then it pretty much comes down to what is meant by "powerful." Does "powerful" denote an ability to know? Or to be somewhere? To my knowledge "powerful" is not used in such a manner, to mean knowing or being somewhere, so I think it a quite stretch to claim that by simply adding "all" to it it would then take on just such attributes. Moreover, should omnipotence also imply omniscience, and omnipresence, then it would be redundant, or at least unnecessary, to even mention the two.

We seem to come to where having one omni characteristic implies having all and also to where having one precludes having others. I think this is a classic paradox used in arguing that omni characteristics are logically impossible.

Perhaps you do, but I don't.

 

[0zyzzyz0]

Skwim, when you say "Perhaps you do, but I don't." I'm thinking you mean that you remain uncomvinced that an omnipotent being is necessarily also omnicient and omnipresent. Questioning the premise to ensure its actually valid before employing it seems like a wise move to me. I'm big on advocating that we take great care in questioning what we think we know or are prepared to assume.

Where I've come to on this is a point where I am ready to acknowledge that an allegedly omnipotent being would theoretically be able to know all that it is possible for it to know, but would not necessarily know all. My understandings of matters epistomological include an understanding that knowledge is relationally entangled and therefore limitted to the relational reach of a sentient being.

Lets play this out: A proposed omniscient, omnipresent God would necessarily have to be actually all that is and also the relational sum of all that is (in keeping with basic ZF set theory) in order to be all knowing in keeping with this understanding. In essence, there could be nothing external to it and it would necessarily have to know itself absolutely and have complete knowledge of its knowledge of itself, and complete knowledge of its knowledge of its knowledge of itself, and complete...

Further, I think, and I'm no expert here, that in the field of epistemology it is widely held that there cannot be absolute, complete knowledge because justified true knowledge involves a necessary infinite regress of justifications. In an actually infinite reality knowledge may be justified infinitely, but never absolutely.

Another paradox with omnicience would seem to be that a proposed omniscient being would not have free will! How could it? This is well trodden territory in philosophy and I think pretty well established, but... ? [Another spin off thread?] Also, how can a being without free will be considered omnipotent?

Given (?) all of this then, how could a God actually be omnipotent, omniscient and/or omnipresent? None of these seem to be logically possible characteristics for an actually existent being to have . The only way to sustain such a claim or belief then is to logically establish that logic may be disregarded and that we should accept that a God that is impossible by definition can and does actually exist.

Neat trick that would be eh?! I'm not about to try it. I'm pretty sure Penn & Teller would decline trying too.

I've obviously skipped along too quickly here. Right?

Basically, 'I think' I've established that omnicience is an impossible characteristic for an actually existent being to have. It seems also that I've established that an posited omnipotent being could not actually exercise that absolute omnipotent power [paradox alert!] and that therefore there cannot be an actually existent omnipotent being.

Fictional: Sure Real: Uh-uh

Not ruled out is the possiblity that a posited God could be very powerful and very knowledgable. But then, neither have we established any need to posit any kind of god in order to explain anything or everything, nor any evidence indicating the existence of any such God.

'I think' I've overplayed my hand trying to pack all of this into these little message boxes.
%)

Someone, please find the holes in my reasoning.

0zy

 

[0zyzzyz0]

Dang it!

I tossed out these provocative leaps of reasoning in hopes of engaging some interesting minds.

Nobody interested in challenging what's been said so far?

Skwim's challenge of the initial semantic premises seemed a good place to start. I for one can't but appreciate that approach. I'm even inclined to think his perspective might be the better for being the more cautious. It seems to suggest that I might have taken too much liberty in asserting so much from such loosely defined terms.

Thoughts? Anyone?

 

[Reptillian]

I've always thought that if the many worlds interpretation were true, it would be bad news for those that believe in a creator god who actually intervenes in people's lives. If every quantum possibility or eventuality is actually played out, then where is the freedom for god to act or create?

 

[0zyzzyz0]

I've always thought that if the many worlds interpretation were true, it would be bad news for those that believe in a creator god who actually intervenes in people's lives. If every quantum possibility or eventuality is actually played out, then where is the freedom for god to act or create?

I think any would be hard pressed to fault your reasoning. I'm on the same page with you on this, btw.

It sure seems that in accepting the MWI there remains no need of invoking the God hypothesis.

When you raise the question, "...where is the freedom for god to act or create?", does that bring us to wondering if there is any way for God to have free will? Does it limit influence of any being to localized action just like anything else we have ever been able to observe or have indication of as being existent?

Hmmm? You might just have classically answered the question I posed with your question.

You use the term, "god" as opposed to "God", but I think that we can only speak meaningfully in terms of these questions if we address them to a defined, specific, common conception of a god, perhaps the "traditional" Abrahamic God as indicated by the traditional upper case G - to the extent and limit that we are capable of sharing such a conception.

Thanx,
0zy

 

[ellenjanuary]

I don't see how "omni" overcomes "the parable of time." That's a tale I wrote when I heard that time did not begin until 10^-42 seconds after the big bang - I was like, Eureka! God ran the simulations of every possible outcome of 1+1 = universe in his own mainframe with an infinitely divisible consciousness - and is already done and dusted, the universe we observe? Ex nihilo nuffink! This is the body of god.

The multiverse is a nightmare. An infinite amount of possible outcomes for every step taken renders the step taker infinitely insignificant. I'd stay away from that philosophy.

 

[0zyzzyz0]

Ellen writes: "I don't see how "omni" overcomes "the parable of time." That's a tale I wrote when I heard that time did not begin until 10^-42 seconds after the big bang..."

It's not quite right to say that time began at 10^-42 seconds after the big bang. If we keep in mind that time isn't something actually existent, but is more a relational metric. "Our" space/time continuum is that associated with the expansion of what we might consider our local universe, what traditionally, of late, would have been referred to as 'the universe'.

EFE equations break down at times and lengths smaller than the Planck limits. It's not that there cannot be realities on scales smaller than these. It's just that we cannot employ general realtivity to look back any further in the causal metrics than this. Even conservation of energy and momentum break down. We get gravitational collapse and symmetry breaking... The dimensions and scales we normally think of as time and space become meaningless to us at scales smaller than these.

We don't come to an absolute beginning - creation ex nihilo. We come to a singularity and can only speculate beyond this point.

We can safely model that the space/time we are familiar with must have originated within a prior context of some kind. Every cosmologic observation ever made has witnessed that any context always exists within a greater context. This is why our understanding of what we refer to as "the universe" keeps expanding. That context of our s/t necessarily must be a greater s/t continuum.

Some conception of an omni-universe, not necessarily Everett's MWI, must, of necessity, be entertained as the most elegantly simple of explananations accounting for "the parable of time."

Yep. Everett's MWI sure is a "nightmare'.

The difficulty [my opinion] is not with actual infinity though. We cannot escape the necessity of positing that reality must be actually infinite. Any models trying to avoid this fail. This is the long history lesson of cosmology and cosmogeny based on the observations. Only infinite regress can account for all that is.

[.]
0zy

ps, Ellen: I like the reference to the simulation universe model. I so like how it seems to account for so much. I've become a fan of it too. I can't see it accounting successfully for any anthropomorphic conceptions of gods though. Human imagination and folly seems to be enough to account for that trickery.

%)

 

[ellenjanuary]

That ain't the worst part.

I have these "five symbols given unto me by Gwyneth Paltrow in a dream" that form the basis of mathematical theology (I freaking adore Gwynnie... sorry, I'll be rational now). But one is based upon the postulation: if every increase of information is accompanied by an increase in entropy, what if the converse is also true? What if entropy, long seen as merely the engine of destruction is actually the engine of creation? That each increase of entropy is driving the creation of information to the infinite? What if the mathematics can see the infinite because number is non-entropic, and the infinity they see is actually in the future?

Or is that just being more irrational rather than less? But as you state, we keep finding a bigger box. I'm more receptive to multiverse than four years ago when I formulated the parable, but what if it is not necessary? What if this universe is universe enough, but what if we do not understand is time and our existence as temporal beings? i was thinking of Cantor's continuum hypothesis, and how it stands as both true and false; yet what if there is dimensionality to infinity? A ray that begins ten to the eighteenth seconds ago and points towards an infinite future, might be enough "real-world" infinity to account for the non-entropic "Absolute Infinity" of Cantor.

I'm thinking. But I definitely agree with you on one point. Whatever we think we know about god - we don't.

 

[0zyzzyz0]

Ellen:"...based upon the postulation: if every increase of information is accompanied by an increase in entropy, what if the converse is also true? What if entropy, long seen as merely the engine of destruction is actually the engine of creation? That each increase of entropy is driving the creation of information to the infinite? What if the mathematics can see the infinite because number is non-entropic, and the infinity they see is actually in the future?"

In trying to follow you on this (Whoooaa... Is that a rabbit hole i just stumbled into?) i'm thinking along lines of information theory on the one hand and thermodynamics on the other. I might be trying to mix things that don't mix.

So, if the amount of info (bits) in a system is determined by it's physical limits, likewise the number of base logic operations is limitted by the number of bits in play. In a a closed system (a finite universe) entropy would increase and all info would become uniform and we'd be observing evidense of a static universe. That's how primitive cosmologies paint the picture, but modern observations seem to be looking at a dynamic universe.

I guess i'm thinking that instead of entropy being a force of creation, it would be the non creative mark of a static, finite universe. We seem instead to have a creative evolving force at play within an infinite multiverse - a non closed system. Any given universe within such an ensemble would be as an incomplete set requiring an greater ensemble to explain it.

In saying that though i might be accused of misapplying Godel's incompleteness theorem, but if we look at sets and physical reality in terms of bits it all seems to fall together for me this way. Nothing is ever ultimately complete or absolute. Anything must exist within a greater context or depend for its existense on a greater context.

You put a lot in that for me to chew on and i'm being interupted. Be back to ponder later.
%)
0zy

 

[0zyzzyz0]

I guess what i was trying to say in my too wordy way was that we should keep in mind that information can neither be created nor destroyed as it is mathematically equivalent to mass and enegy and therefore subject also to the laws of thermodynamics. I am inclined to agree with those positing that the base component of reality is information. All being simulation within simulation within simulation... works out consistently just fine.

If we think of a finite universe as being a closed set then it cannot be complete. This is where i drag Godel's Incompleteness Theorum into our consideration.

Entropy increases in a closed system, and forecasts of a cold, dark death to our universe would seem to be in keeping with this. Even in this scenario though, the total information of the universe would not be lost. It would just be dissapated.

The tricky part, as i see it is accounting for how it came to be in the first place. How to account for creation? If creation can only come about from pre-existent conditions, then creation can only be a transformative creation and not an absolute creation ex nihilo. This fits with everything we can understand from historical observations. I think this even fits with Linde's or Vilenkin's quantum creation theories, with taking into account zero point energy, with infinite regress, with... but not, again, with absolute creation ex nihilo.

I've gotten wordy again.

Sigh...

All this just seems to amount to a bust for your postulation. It only seems to hold if the the arrow of time gets reversed. It could be argued that since time isn't actually something that is existent then this should be considered a workable possibility, but the relational construct, the common referential that we think of as time, does seem to have a one way flow.

Get around that and we can establish your postulate as a valid premise.

Oh... Am I at work? Maybe i should be attending to that.

%)
0zy

 

[0zyzzyz0]

All is still quiet here at work.

...I love how you bring the continuum hypothesis into this. I've broken my brain trying to contort it around that. The most I can figure is that reality can be both continous and discrete, depending on the perspective it is considered from. In that, the nature of reality would therefore be observer dependent and could be considered as either discrete or continuous depending on the scale of magnitude being considered and depending on whether or not we consider Planck limits to be scale limits or actually absolute limits.

My inclination is to consider them limits imposed by the mathematical equations or set theories being employed. As I consider infinite regress to be epistemologically the only sound and acceptable explantiion accounting for all of reality, then i consistently consider reality also to be of a continuous rather than a discrete nature.

"Dimensionality to infinity?" The maths seem to allow for it. It seem conceivable. Why not?

We intuitively think in terms of limits, or finite boundaries, but history teaches us that allowing the possiblity of absolute infinity as the standard default gets us consistent theorums while trying to introduce limits only gets us hypotheticals that require greater contexts to epistemologically justify them.

"...enough?" you say. Enough for what?